Hello, my name is Kristy. I procrastinate.
I've decided to go home for the weekend, so I bought me a ticket for the 9am bus out of here. It is a few minutes after midnight, and you can rest assured, I am not packing. Clearly you can see that I am instead "blogging" as they say.
Some of you may be thinking, "Kristy, it is a few minutes after midnight. Why don't you pack and go to bed?" To which I reply, "You don't know me at all!" This is what I do: ritualized not-packing. I may be up, not packing, until 4 or 5am. I'm that good at it. It's where I shine.
Not-packing involves an intense combination of wandering to and fro, emailing, making coffee, drinking coffee, burning cd's for friends, organizing old utility bills, hating all my clothes, making a list of things I could pack, checking the weather report, deciding to watch an episode of Friends on TV while I pack, watching an episode of Friends while not packing, deciding whether or not the trip will necessitate me bringing a bandana (the answer is always "yes, just in case"), plus a whole host of other activities, none of which involve placing items into a suitcase.
Tonight I will be attempting the triple-axle of not-packing: Yes, friends, I will be doing my taxes. This not-packing ritual has intensified over the years, and I'm not sure why. What is causing this mental block that prevents me from behaving like a normal person on the eve of travel? I think I should spend the next few hours psycho-analyzing myself to get at the root of the issue.
Reach out touch faith
One of my favorite games is the Inappropriate Game. It requires no equipment and can be played any time, any place. It goes something like this: you try to figure out what would be the most inappropriate ___________ to do ____________. Example: What would be the most inappropriate song for a bride to walk down the aisle to? Possible Answer: Mu-zac version of "It's Raining Men."
Some friends and I particularly enjoy the genre of "Inappropriate offertories." What would be the most inappropriate song to sing for an offertory at church? Some suggestions have been "Like a Prayer" (Madonna), "Moment Like This" (Kelly Clarkson), "Faith" (George Michael), etc.
Tonight at the Maundy Thursday service I attended, the offertory was actually "Personal Jesus" by DepecheMode. At first, I was reminded of the inappropriate Game, but after listening to the lyrics, I think it rather worked quite well.
I'm amused by the imagined scene of two little old blue-haired ladies sitting together in a church. It's time for the offertory, and as the ushers start to pass the plates, Pearl turns to Eugenia and whispers, "Genie, isn't that DepecheMode they're playing?"
Friday, April 14, 2006
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Walking on Water
I just read an article on CNN about a scientist who believes that certain climatic conditions in northern Israel 1500-2600 years ago could have cause water to freeze and chunks of ice to form in the Sea of Galilee.
And if this did happen, perhaps Jesus was really standing on one such chunk of ice when he supposedly "walked on water." The scientist is quoted saying "If you ask me if I believe someone walked on water, no, I don't....Maybe somebody walked on the ice, I don't know. I believe that something natural was there that explains it."
The scientist further postulates that "it might have been nearly impossible for distant observers to see a piece of floating ice surrounded by water." So the disciples, sitting in the boat, might have seen Jesus out on the water and not realized that he was actually just standing on some ice.
Interesting theory; here are my issues with it:
a) The story of Jesus walking on water is told in 3 out of the 4 Gospels. In all 3 accounts, the disciples are described as "terrified" when they see Jesus. It's easy to imagine these poor simpletons, sitting in a boat long ago, stupefied by the vision of a man in the middle of a big lake. Then perhaps the scientist's view seems logical - these men, at a loss to explain the natural phenomenon of what they were seeing, can only muster that Jesus must be walking on water. Silly disciples!
Sure, many of these men were uneducated, and all lived in the dark ages before iPods and Excel spreadsheets. But though they were not as technologically advanced as we are today, can we assume they had inferior reasoning and logic skills to us as well?
I don't think so. Before giving in to terror, the disciples would have looked for a reasonable explanation (or a "natural" explanation as the scientist said in the article) for what their eyes beheld. But, finding/seeing none, the only natural response would be to be terrified at the power of the Lord displayed before them.
b) Furthermore, the disciples weren't "distant observers." In all 3 Gospel accounts, Jesus gets into the boat with the disciples. If he were near enough to the boat to climb in, don't you think the disciples would have seen the ice?
The scientist's desire to find an explanation for this miracle story seems to indicate that he does believe the Gospels are valid historical documents, recording the disciples' experience & understanding of events that actually took place. If you don't believe the events ever happened, why bother coming up with theories explaining how the events could have naturally occurred? No one (who's sane) spends much time trying to figure out how Dorothy could have come under the impression that she had been transported to the magical land of Oz during a twister.
So if you believe the Gospel events happened in some form, but seek to naturalize the supernatural elements, I think what you're left with is a pretty mean Jesus. I mean, his friends are sitting there completely terrified, and he doesn't do anything to alleviate their fears? No "Ha ha, don't worry Peter, I'm just standing on some ice!" Let's them go right on thinking he's the Son of God and worship him? (see John 14.33)
To sum up, I get the scientist's intent. It would be nice and neat to explain away the Gospel's miracles with scientific discovery. To believe in miracles requires faith, and we all know faith is no easy thing.
But without the miracles, the Jesus of Nazareth described in the Bible is a mean liar - a "madman," to borrow C.S. Lewis' term. And that's just not the Jesus I know personally.
I just read an article on CNN about a scientist who believes that certain climatic conditions in northern Israel 1500-2600 years ago could have cause water to freeze and chunks of ice to form in the Sea of Galilee.
And if this did happen, perhaps Jesus was really standing on one such chunk of ice when he supposedly "walked on water." The scientist is quoted saying "If you ask me if I believe someone walked on water, no, I don't....Maybe somebody walked on the ice, I don't know. I believe that something natural was there that explains it."
The scientist further postulates that "it might have been nearly impossible for distant observers to see a piece of floating ice surrounded by water." So the disciples, sitting in the boat, might have seen Jesus out on the water and not realized that he was actually just standing on some ice.
Interesting theory; here are my issues with it:
a) The story of Jesus walking on water is told in 3 out of the 4 Gospels. In all 3 accounts, the disciples are described as "terrified" when they see Jesus. It's easy to imagine these poor simpletons, sitting in a boat long ago, stupefied by the vision of a man in the middle of a big lake. Then perhaps the scientist's view seems logical - these men, at a loss to explain the natural phenomenon of what they were seeing, can only muster that Jesus must be walking on water. Silly disciples!
Sure, many of these men were uneducated, and all lived in the dark ages before iPods and Excel spreadsheets. But though they were not as technologically advanced as we are today, can we assume they had inferior reasoning and logic skills to us as well?
I don't think so. Before giving in to terror, the disciples would have looked for a reasonable explanation (or a "natural" explanation as the scientist said in the article) for what their eyes beheld. But, finding/seeing none, the only natural response would be to be terrified at the power of the Lord displayed before them.
b) Furthermore, the disciples weren't "distant observers." In all 3 Gospel accounts, Jesus gets into the boat with the disciples. If he were near enough to the boat to climb in, don't you think the disciples would have seen the ice?
The scientist's desire to find an explanation for this miracle story seems to indicate that he does believe the Gospels are valid historical documents, recording the disciples' experience & understanding of events that actually took place. If you don't believe the events ever happened, why bother coming up with theories explaining how the events could have naturally occurred? No one (who's sane) spends much time trying to figure out how Dorothy could have come under the impression that she had been transported to the magical land of Oz during a twister.
So if you believe the Gospel events happened in some form, but seek to naturalize the supernatural elements, I think what you're left with is a pretty mean Jesus. I mean, his friends are sitting there completely terrified, and he doesn't do anything to alleviate their fears? No "Ha ha, don't worry Peter, I'm just standing on some ice!" Let's them go right on thinking he's the Son of God and worship him? (see John 14.33)
To sum up, I get the scientist's intent. It would be nice and neat to explain away the Gospel's miracles with scientific discovery. To believe in miracles requires faith, and we all know faith is no easy thing.
But without the miracles, the Jesus of Nazareth described in the Bible is a mean liar - a "madman," to borrow C.S. Lewis' term. And that's just not the Jesus I know personally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)